44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 30, 2023 11:00AM
- Jan/30/23 11:04:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be the first member of the House to rise and speak in 2023. I would like to wish all my colleagues from all parties a happy new year.
We hope that we all have a prosperous year, working together productively and introducing bills that will make a difference. We hope to see strong, decisive action, especially when it comes to language, but also in the fight against climate change. That is very important to me. We also want decisive action for our seniors, meaningful action for housing, and action that will really improve people's lives. I think we also want to hear the expression “triple, triple, triple” less often in the House. I think everyone would like that.
I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 62. I want to thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard, with whom I was lucky to work at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. He is doing remarkable work. I think this motion is very important. There are all kinds of humanitarian and human rights crises going on in the world right now. I became aware of that, and it is something that matters very much to my colleague as well.
I think it is especially important to talk about the motion before us this morning, which is about what is happening to the Uighurs. I would note that here in Ottawa today, on Parliament Hill, we have Dolkun Isa, president of the World Uyghur Congress; Omer Kanat, executive vice-president of the World Uyghur Congress; Mehmet Tohti, executive director of the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project; and many members of the Uighur diaspora. I thank them for being here on Parliament Hill, and I hope their presence here will help put some pressure on this government. I really think that is what we need.
First, I would warn my colleagues who are sensitive and have a tender heart. I am about to tell members a really horrific story, one that will make our hearts pound, give us the chills and absolutely stun us. My colleagues should do what I did before becoming a politician. They should put themselves in the other person's shoes. They should try to see things from the perspective of the person I am going to talk about.
This is the story of a Uighur woman who immigrated to Canada several years ago. Her father became very sick and this woman decided to return to her country. When she arrived in her home city, she was welcomed at the airport by her sisters. Her heart filled with joy as she was so happy to see them. It was a meaningful moment. However, a sense of unease came over her. She did not know why, but she sensed that she was not welcome. In the taxi, they asked her to remain silent and not to talk. She thought that things would be all right when she arrived at her home, but her sister asked everyone to turn off their cell phones. She whispered to her that something had been installed on their roof the previous evening and that she had to be careful about what she said.
One night, at a restaurant, she noticed three men seated at the table next to her. She realized they were government agents. She was scared and did not finish her meal. These men watched her suspiciously. She slipped out into the market, which used to be quite vibrant, only to realize that no one was there. Her sister told her that most of the people had practically disappeared overnight, including her best friend. The situation was untenable and was jeopardizing her family. She had no choice but to leave. She left behind her dying father and her sisters, never to see them again. It was a heart-rending farewell. She returned to the comfort of her home in Quebec, while her family lives in fear in China.
This is a very real story. The actions of this government have been very tentative and weak. The government has reluctantly acknowledged that China's treatment of the Uighurs constitutes genocide. While an entire people is being persecuted and employed in so-called vocational training schools, surrounded by walls and barbed wire, watched by guards equipped with batons and shields, the government across the way seems just a tad hesitant.
It is also important to remember that many women are being raped. Some women told the committee about the sexual and psychological abuse they have suffered. Children are being taken away from their families and placed in orphanages or state-run schools. Good people are being forced into factories as slaves, primarily outside the Xinjiang region, further contributing to the shrinking Muslim population.
This is the same government that decided to boycott the Olympic Games, but to no effect. That is what it decided to do rather than demand that the games be moved so that the event could not be used for Chinese propaganda. It was as though the human rights violations and attacks on human dignity that we are talking about were somewhat or partially acceptable. The government will not go all the way with sanctions, because it thinks it can negotiate with people's suffering.
This morning, it is very important to point out how ironic it is that Motion No. 62 states that the government determined that China's treatment of Uighurs is genocide, when, in reality, the executive, the council of ministers, cravenly abstained during the vote on the previous motion in February 2021. We sincerely hope that such will not be the case this time, that the government will take the bull by the horns, show some backbone and truly acknowledge that what is happening in China right now is a genocide against the Uighur people.
We are talking about a regime that spies on and tracks Uighurs even beyond its own borders. Cameras and facial recognition technologies are used to track down deserters. Just like in bad sci-fi movies, this government introduces new family members through sponsorship programs. For example, one day I could end up with a new brother named George who would live with me and who my children would call their uncle. He would have me sent to a prison camp, beat my children and rape my wife. Meanwhile, my colleagues would turn a blind eye and wonder whether boycotting an event would have any kind of political impact.
The government is talking about bringing 10,000 Uighurs to Canada, which is approximately 0.08%. Those are the lucky ones who will be able to enjoy our openness while hopefully avoiding the Chinese service stations set up in our country. They will avoid forced sterilizations and no longer be assimilated. That said, what about the 99.92% of Uighurs who will continue to be raped, assaulted and abused and who may end up with a new brother? Are we going to be complicit in the abuse that these people are going to suffer or will we finally take action to support and help these people, these humans?
There is also talk of foreign interference, given that many of the bordering countries are participating in this genocide, some without the option of refusing. Canada is not immune to these pressures. While the House of Commons passed a motion in 2020 calling on the federal government to have a plan to counter foreign interference, nothing has been done so far. Even in Quebec, we now have Chinese police stations that are calling the shots.
Are we going to do like we did with Yemen? Are we going to keep pretending we are not to blame by consenting to play a political game and by denying our responsibility when we sell arms to Saudi Arabia that are then used to kill Yemenites? Even as we give, we participate in torture. Is that who we are? Can we look forward to this government tabling a refugee resettlement plan quickly so that this does not fall off the radar while people are left to suffer?
These people are enduring slavery, torture, rape, sterilization, abuse, persecution, suffering and death. I admire these deeply resilient human beings who are risking their lives to fight for their freedom and who are not giving up on that dream.
1408 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my wish for my colleagues is that 2023 is a bit different than these past few years.
A few minutes ago, I heard my colleague ask if we could encourage people to get into politics and set aside partisan rhetoric on the thousands of files before us.
Today I have the great pleasure of speaking to Bill C‑35. I say bravo because we are entirely in favour in principle. I am very proud of that. I must also say that my colleague did a fine job explaining the ins and outs of everything that might be missing from this bill.
I will talk more about the pride of Quebec for more than 25 years now. Having heard the speech by my Conservative colleague, I hope to give the others a bit more of an understanding of the purpose of this bill and the need to see it through.
I want to look back because I want to talk about how proud I am. Just before being appointed, the first female premier of Quebec introduced a forward-thinking family policy that changed the lives of countless families and boosted the economy. It levelled the playing field for everyone and put children on the path to educational success, and I am very proud of that. What is more, the policy was implemented in a reasonable way that did not break parents' budgets. That is why, at the time, it was known as the groundbreaking $5 day care. Today, it does not even cost $9 a day. For us, it is still a good program with benefits that I will talk about in the next few minutes.
As the minister said earlier, in 1997, this program made it possible for children from all walks of life and all social classes to attend day care and for all parents, both men and women, who had never even considered doing so, to go back to work and become independent, to prepare to take the path I talked about earlier.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues are really bothering me. I thought we had set the stage for a minimum level of respect. They need to go talk somewhere else besides right in front of me because I am finding it difficult to keep speaking. I want to point that out.
387 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/23 3:19:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since it is the first time I am standing in this House and it is the first day in 2023, I wish you and all loved ones a happy new year, especially the good people of the riding of Waterloo.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/23 6:30:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on our first day back in calendar 2023. I am returning to a question that I put to the hon. Minister of Environment on October 20, 2022. It is important to note the date because of the minister's response.
My question cited the Liberal platform in the election of 2021, in which they promised to, “Establish and fully fund a Canada Water Agency in 2022”. It was also promised that they would, “Modernize the 50-year-old Canada Water Act”.
The Minister of Environment responded with, “we are, in fact, working to create an independent water agency for Canada.” He said we needed to pursue this and then at the end of his response, he said, “we will have good news to announce to this House in the coming weeks.”
That was October 20, 2022, and of course, it is true that the last week of January 2023 does fall within weeks after the answer that we received in October, but the nature of the minister's answer, I think it is fair to say, suggested something a bit sooner than some time next year and we are still waiting.
We are now in a period of pre-budget work, and I think it is important to focus now on what the government must include in the budget if it is at all serious about creating a Canada water agency. I note particularly, and it was encouraging to me at the time, that the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change used the word “independent” to refer to this agency.
I want to cite that we have quite a lot of good, solid work being done in the NGO community by groups like Flow and others across Canada that work on water policy. There is a strong consensus that the Canada water agency must be independent of the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, as well as the Department of Natural Resources.
There is a strong call to have an officer of chief water security to work through interjurisdictional blockages and ensure that this country has strong water policy. We know we need to ensure that we have what we used to have in Canada, which was co-operation and shared work between provinces and the federal government, with the federal government in the lead, on programs to avoid flooding.
Flood plain work was shared, anticipating the vulnerabilities of our water system to floods and making sure that we pay attention to water policy, particularly around our freshwater systems, like the Great Lakes or Lake Winnipeg.
It is extraordinarily important that we rebuild the scientific capacity we once had in this country, which is now down to precious little compared to what was there when I worked in the Minister of Environment's office back in the eighties. We had a robust program, an inland waters directorate, near Hamilton. We had a very strong department with hundreds of people working. It has virtually disappeared.
What happened to the “coming weeks”? What happened to the “good news”? When are we going to see an independent Canada water agency that is fully funded to at least $1 billion a year as promised in the platform?
564 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
